RollofDuctTape

In the states, most settlements of this nature preclude you from (1) talking about them to people who aren't directly involved and (2) speaking negatively, even if it's implicit, against the other party.

Does your settlement have a similar clause?

Specifically this:

However, everything after - evidence being hidden and covered up, witnesses changing their statements on the stand from trial to trial to cover up for wrongful uses of batons, police telling direct and provable lies on the stand (5ft 5inch officer standing on the wrong side of the horse saw the entire incident THROUGH THE HORSE), and more, is entirely inexcusable.

Would screw you over quite a bit in my district.

As someone who frequents r/hhh I understand your reasoning. The rule is:

Asking people to vote up or down certain posts, either on Reddit itself or through social networks, messaging, etc.

Which he admits to doing. Even if it's one person. He did it.

However, I think the zero tolerance policy is a little silly considering the rule itself isn't widely publicized and for folks that aren't too familiar with reddit (like he admits to not being) it doesn't make any sense why you can't just ask a few buddies to help you out.